Re: git: using branches

[Simos Xenitellis <simos lists googlemail com>]

On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Luca Ferretti <elle uca libero it> wrote:
> 2009/4/17 Gil Forcada <gforcada gnome org>:
>>
>> Should I update the "working with branches" section with this commands?
>>
>
> I hope there is a more simple way to do this. This seems a nonsense to
> me: create a new local branch in order to commit+push on an existing
> branch on server...
>
> BTW there is no way to produce a "ligthweight" local copy? I.e. only
> the latest versione of a single branch, instead full history form all
> branches for a given module. Could be good for simple commits like
> like this, waiting for commit support in damned-lies.

We have mentioned these some time ago. Search for 'shallow' clones.
It's the '--depth' parameter in 'git clone'.

My personal view is that a shallow clone (that is, a clone with limited history)
provides small gains. More comments and benchmarking on this would be welcome.

I think that it is better to get full clones of the GNOME release
repositories and
simply keep them locally, and update (with "git pull --rebase") before
committing.

My view is to propose to the GNOME translators to dedicate around 2GB
for permanent local GNOME repositories, for those that wish to keep
using the command line.

I plan to update my script at http://github.com/simos/intltool-manage-vcs/tree
once git.gnome.org stabilises, so that you can simply let it run and
it gets the repos
for you.

Another option would be to have anonymous git repository tarballs, so
that you can wget
in one go (or have then sent by DVD), then extract and use a git command
to convert from anonymous to repositories with your account details.
This would require some talk at gnome-infrastructure
to see if the benefits are enough to put this in place.

Simos